From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:27 -0800

Not present in this discussion is the fact that there are many 
different kinds of OA publishing.  The flagship PLOS journals, 
for example, have an editorial policy that resembles that of 
established toll-access journals.  But PLOS One has a 
different kind of peer review. The first kind is probably too 
expensive to thrive (as OA), since there is no large customer 
base over which the overhead can be spread.  The latter kind, 
which is now being widely imitated, is thriving now, but the 
long-term prospects are uncertain.

The business problem is how to keep the submissions coming 
for the PLOS One model.  This may not be a problem for PLOS 
itself or its One service because of the strength of the brand. 
But what about all the other publishers that are working with this 
author-pays "lite" peer review model?  Why would an author submit 
material to one such service over another?  In the absence of 
old-fashioned peer review, the OA services will be hard to 
distinguish from one another.

The fundamental problem with author-pays OA publishing is that 
it does not add value to the people who pay for it.  It adds value 
to the people who do not pay for it.  In economics, internal 
contradictions have a way of revealing themselves given enough time.

Joe Esposito

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:48:47 -0800

Sandy,

it could be that OAP becomes equally dominated by the big deal, 
and the mechanism by which this would happen is 'subscription'. 
Particularly research libraries seem to be engaging in big OA deals 
with publishers, by agreeing a priori to pay the APC for any given year. 
Smaller publishers, possibly, would then need to coordinate (come 
together, merge?) to be more attractive to the research libraries, who 
are likely to prefer signing a few big deals than negotiating hundreds 
of contracts...

OA publishers and OA advocates are likely to disagree with this 
hypothesis. Indeed, there is a widespread assumption that OAP is 
about market competition and that the APC is a price mechanism that 
links price with quality. However, at the moment we only have the 
assertion that there is (will be) market competition, numerous illustrations 
of OAP income streams, and a first (good) analysis of the OAP landscape 
(from the SOAP project). Missing is a first stab at the analysis of 
competition in OAP: What does competition look like and what would 
constitute a competitive advantage?

At the moment, many publishers are betting that an advantage comes 
from starting a megajournal. For megajournals the APC might indeed 
signal a competitive market (unless research libraries undercut this by 
taking out subscriptions to (some) megajournals).

PLoS is a small publisher, but was well funded and is on the way to 
becoming a big publisher. When starting a megajournal, it helps to have 
money in the bank. So, if I were a small(er) publisher, I would be looking 
at OAP and its opportunities urgently (including OAP for books) because 
the field is still relatively open, but once it has consolidated (more), the 
barriers to entry will surely rise.

In sum, the concerns Sandy has are valid. The SOAP project found that 
a small number of publishers account for much of the funded OAP. Via a 
few M&As it is possible that OAP will be dominated by big players, possibly 
even the same players that dominate SB. 

However, it need not be that way, and the funders of OAP have much 
influence on the development. Then again, maybe the funders of OAP 
prefer dealing with a few large publishers?

Chris
________________________________________
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 November 2011 01:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:41:34 -0600

I would ask Chris if he thinks that the benefits of co-existing OA and
SB business models will be of equal benefit to both large and small
publishers. Or will the largest publishers come to dominate OA
publishing just as they have SB publishing? And if the latter is the
case, does the high profit margin realized by the largest publishers
really redound to the overall benefit of the scholarly communication
system, or not? How much will quality drive the system, as opposed to
sheer market power?

Sandy Thatcher



> From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:20:08 -0800
>
> Joe, Jan,
>
> What is maybe not well understood (yet) is the (potentially strong)
> complementarity between open access and subscription-based publishing
> for a system of scholarly communication in which the published output
> continues to grow substantially (i.e. 3% p.a. because of publish or
> perish, new players/countries, internationalisation, multi-authorship
> etc.). Open access has opened up new sources of revenue. At the same
> time it has a viable business model for the bulk publishing of the
> scientific record, probably at significantly reduced cost. The
> players/ publishers who understand/exploit this new complementarity
> will be the ones that thrive (including a maintained or improved
> profit margin). Of course, this may sound like bad news to some
> advocates of open access as well as of big deal publishing, but from
> the point of view of scholarly communication and the communities this
> is all good news.  From here onwards, it is about optimizing the
> synergy (i.e. positive network effects) of OA and SB publishing in the
> interest of digital scholarly communication (i.e.
> authors/readers/clients/customers).
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris